Unofficial Partner Podcast
Unofficial Partner Podcast
UP513 The Bundle Live @ SPORTEL Monaco: F1 and Apple, Relevent's streamer pitch, D2C wtf?
We took The Bundle to Monaco and recorded a live podcast on stage at Sportel, the famous sports media and technology marketplace.
Joining Richard and regular co-host Murray Barnett were Glen Killane (EBU Sport), Peter Bellamy (Deltatre) and Louisa Clark (Queensberry Promotions).
EPISODE SUMMARY
Broadcasting live from Sportel Monaco's opening session, this special episode captures the sports media industry at a pivotal moment. With Apple's Formula 1 deal breaking over the weekend, Relevent's UEFA strategy dominating conversations, and the French football crisis providing a cautionary tale, our panel explores what delegates will be discussing throughout the week. The central question: in a market that's worked the same way for 30 years, where are rights holders placing their chips now?
Key Theme: Out of chaos comes creativity. The industry faces forced evolution, and this is the "Monte Carlo casino moment" - how conservative or aggressive will rights holders be?
Unofficial Partner is the leading podcast for the business of sport. A mix of entertaining and thought provoking conversations with a who's who of the global industry.
To join our community of listeners, sign up to the weekly UP Newsletter and follow us on Twitter and TikTok at @UnofficialPartner
We publish two podcasts each week, on Tuesday and Friday.
These are deep conversations with smart people from inside and outside sport.
Our entire back catalogue of 400 sports business conversations are available free of charge here.
Each pod is available by searching for ‘Unofficial Partner’ on Apple, Spotify, Google, Stitcher and every podcast app.
If you’re interested in collaborating with Unofficial Partner to create one-off podcasts or series, you can reach us via the website.
Hello, welcome to Unofficial Partner of the Sports Business Podcast. I'm Richard Gillis. And what you're about to hear is a recorded episode on stage last Monday at Sport Hill Monaco, which is the Sports Media and Technology Convention our session kicked off the week and we were given the task of second guessing the main conversation points of the week in the sports media and tech marketplace. Joining me on stage were Murray Barnett, regular co-host of the bundle and co-founder of 26 West Sport, Glen Klan of EBU Sport, Louisa Clark from Queensbury Promotions and Peter Bellamy of Delta Tray. Big thank you to the organizers of Sport El and for everyone who came along and asked questions afterwards.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:We're gonna get going. We've only got 45 minutes and we've got a load to talk about the, brief of this session. As the bundle is our sport media podcast series, so Unofficial Partner. It's nice to see a couple of friendly, uh, listener faces in the audience already. We talk about the sports media marketplace and this is a sort of extension of that. Before we get going, I'm going to get them just to say hello. First of all, to you, but also to the people who would be listening on the podcast so they know whose voice is who. Glenn, can you kick us off and we'll work that way down the line.
Glen Killane:Hi, uh, Glenn Klain, executive Director of Sport at the European Broadcasting Union. Um, we represent, uh, all of the public media organizations, uh, broadcasters across Europe, and we purchased sports rights on their behalf.
Louisa Clark:Hi, I am Louisa Clark. I'm the Chief Commercial Officer of Queensbury Promotions, otherwise known as Frank Warren's boxing business.
Pete Bellamy:Hi all. Uh, Peter Bellamy, chief Revenue Officer at Delta Tray.
Murray Barnett:Uh, Murray Barney, founder of 26 West Sport. Uh, we specialize in advising people on all commercial aspects of sport.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Right. And Murray, what he, what Murray didn't say is the co-host of the bundle. So I've turned him into a journalist. He was a sort of a civilian, and now he works on the other side. So we're gonna get going. So Murray, one of the questions we've got for the whole thing is to set up the week, and one of the questions we sort of thinking about on the plane over was what, what will people be worried about? What are people thinking about and talking about? On the way to sport L and I always see Sport L as a sort of proxy into the broader market. And as luck would have it or was it luck or did I, you know, engineer it? Apple announced their Formula one deal on Friday in America and that felt like a good place to start.'cause it contains a lot of the themes that I think we're gonna bump into over the next 40 minutes or so. Murray Barnick, can you just unpick your background is in Formula One, we should say, is. Apple a good place for Formula One in America?
Murray Barnett:Well, it's certainly a big call'cause obviously having left ESPN, which is a sort of ubiquitous sports service at the us you know, circa 60 million linear households, uh, obviously market leading OTT. So it's a big call to go. Um, I think that. Apple, obviously with the F1, the movie, uh, sort of fully vested in the sport and it's been super successful for them. Uh, but it's certainly a, a very big call and I'd be curious to know what, what others think about it because. You are swapping that extensive distribution on ESPN for, I don't know, 12, maybe 15 million paid subscribers for Apple in the us. So, you know, it's a big risk on both sides. The, obviously, I hope that Apple can expand out their audience, but at the same time, uh. Taking that big reduction in visibility for the sport. And, you know, without sort of going into too much detail, it seems like they're gonna put some races in front of the paywall, but that will still require you to have an apple, uh, you know, a a, a sort of freemium model to it. Yeah. But, um, it's a big call.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Can I just have a quick show of hands? Who is an Apple subscriber? Apple TV subscriber here. Okay, so about. Quarter maybe of the audience. And you would say that this audience skews very heavily towards sort of being subscriber, uh, type people, particularly on the sports side, you would imagine. So that's quite interesting. Glen, what do you think about that question? About just the, there's the scale question. I wanna talk about what it does for Apple in a minute, but what was your sort of Spidey sense when you saw this deal?'cause it is a big jump and I'm wondering what the implications of that.
Glen Killane:Yeah, I, I'm, I'm Murray's far better qualified than I am to, to, to kind of talk about Formula One. Um, I'm not an avid Formula One fan, uh, but I am a fan of bloke in the
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Fastest Car. Normally wins maybe? Yeah,
Glen Killane:generally, yeah. Um, I not always, you know, I wouldn't say that if, if there was a Formula One race in my back garden, I wouldn't go out and watch it. But I'm not a huge Formula One fan, but I'm a huge fan of their business and what they've done. Yeah, massive. Uh, it's massive what they've done and doesn't, they don't need me to say that. Um, I'm also a fan of Apple and what they've done, uh, strangely enough, it feels like ESPN weren't, weren't, uh, you know, kind of drowning, uh, formula One with love, uh, on this one. And it feels like they made an attempt to retain the rights, but it was fairly half-hearted. From what I can see. It feels like a reasonably sensible play for Apple because it's not massively high risk, because Formula One in the US is not. Top. Top tier. Yeah. It's kind of mid tier Murray. Would that be a fair, fair way to describe it?
Murray Barnett:Very much so. Yeah.
Glen Killane:Um, so there's an opportunity there. I mean, I think the risk is on the formula one side, you know, in terms of you're losing those, that potential audience reach and what kind of marketing power Apple are gonna put behind this now and really drive that, that part of it, if you pardon the expression. So for me. There's, there's a lot. I'm intrigued by this deal. I think it's gonna be really interesting to watch how it goes. Apple have such scale in terms of the monetary power that they have behind them, that they can really put a lot of marketing books behind this. Um. I, I don't know if Formula One had a lot of options, though. This is what it's, it looks like to me. Um, um, and Apple seems like a good option. Are they the kind of company that would kind of come in for one cycle and then disappear? Uh, it, they don't feel like that kind. There's a reputational hit there that would be there as well. It feels like they're gonna take this for quite a while and, and, and grow this and, and, and, and drive it in the, in the, in the US market. So. My main, my main kind of emotion is one of, I'm absolutely intrigued by how this is gonna go. There's a fair amount of risk in jeopardy on the Formula one side, but I don't think they had a lot of options.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:There's also the money, I guess is the question. You know, they, so the reported or the, the numbers appear to be 140 million that Apple are paying ESPN. We're at the, you can put me right Mary, but about the 80, 90 million mark. So you've got, to your point, the very first line is it's a big check that they've taken. Pete, what did you think?'cause I think within this, we did a bundle ahead of the earlier round, the Budapest, the, the heavy rumor it was gonna be announced earlier in the year. It seemed to be delayed because of the direct to consumer question. In terms of the F1 tv, bit of the equation, given your. day job. What, what's your sense of that and its role and what that, does it tell us anything about D two C?
Pete Bellamy:Well, I think, I mean, that is the big question. I think, and I'm sure it did delay things because if you're a business like F1 and you've invested very, very heavily in building out that direct consumer experience, both from a technology and a, and a platform product point of view, but marketing and building up that. That customer base, it's a big call in a market where although it's not in the top tier, it's still one of F one's biggest markets from a kind of fandom perspective, if you look at the numbers on, you know, YouTube engagement. So it, it is a big call to step back from that. And I, I mean, I'm probably a little bit, uh, biased in my view of this because of what we do as a business, but it does feel like a bit of a shame to spend many years building something up. For it to then potentially, you know, almost disappear. I would always be a, a proponent of trying to find a way of, of getting that right kind of hybrid mix where there's a non platform, off platform kind of co-promotion exercise where a subset of that experiences within the Apple TV environment, but then it cross promotes out to F1 TV premium, et cetera. And I know it's complex because of the. Rights, valuations. But I, I think that almost allows these sports properties to de-risk their strategy over, not, not a three year cycle or a five year cycle, but kind of 10, 15 years.'cause you don't wanna build it up and then for it to be dormant and then maybe be starting again, like you said, maybe one cycle further in which, which is probably unlikely. So it's interesting. But, um, you know, I think it's, it'll be a shame if, if there isn't some way of, of pushing it. Um, I mean we, we, uh, we run, so
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:sorry, but there's also to say it's, they make a lot of money from FYI mean, it's about, is it 40 million they make, I dunno if that's a global figure or in America, I,
Pete Bellamy:you know, I don't, I don't know that, but I have heard that stat. But they do make a lot of money from it. But look, it's hard, you know, they've, they've clearly got a, a good, uh, revenue outcome from the tie up. And that's the balance again, that all these sports properties have is do you take the media rights check and almost de-risk your business plan? Or do you go direct to consumer, invest in marketing and, and see there's a longer term play there. So it'll be interesting, like, I mean with MLS on, on Apple, as I say, we do the, the data and graphics, they've actually distributed, uh, via, uh, direct TV and T-Mobile on top of the Apple TV deal. So I dunno whether there's gonna be a plan there as well.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Louisa, what do you think from a looking at, from a, from your seat, I know at the moment obviously you've had a, a, a very varied career in terms of your background, but you are now a, a what I'm putting you into a rights holder position. What does it look like from your point of view?'cause you've the thread, and it's not a cliche to say that we are close to Monte Carlo and it's a risk reward type question, isn't it? In terms of the nature or the, the sense of the sort of conservative versus ambitious radical end of things. What did you think when you saw this?
Louisa Clark:I mean, I suppose from Queens Bay's perspective, Queensbury was in that position. It was with what was BT Sport and then TT Sport. I was on the flip of that, managing that relationship. And then now they move to the zone. And actually, when you're a rights holder, at the end of the day, it's about what are my options for homes?
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah.
Louisa Clark:And who has the check that will allow me to have the ambition that I want to have and can deliver on it. But I'm. Putting that side, I'm with Pete because my other thought is you cannot, as a rights holder, just rely on that working. You have to keep going with your own brand build, whether that's your own DC play,'cause you carve out a set of rights for that or that you work. In fan engagement and in other forms of content.'cause you look, everyone talks about Netflix try to survive you, you can do other things that don't have to sit on that same broadcaster platform. Yeah. To keep your brand building and growing in case it doesn't work. In case some it is or it doesn't meet your ambition or it doesn't meet the plan. But I, I have hope for the Apple situation because I actually think that when you look at it. They're trying to look at all the different touch points they have with customers and say, how can we use that in a more integrated planned way than just putting the live event on the platform and hoping people tune in?
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah, yeah, yeah. I guess there's a question from there in terms of what, what I, quite often when we, you sit and talk about these things, you jump on, what does it mean, type. You know, for, for everyone else, and there is a bit of it that's very specific and then there's a bit of it that you think, okay, well there's, there is some universal stuff that'cause other, you know, it iterates, doesn't it? The market we are looking at. This is a deal that people will look and study and say, well what does it mean for me? What do you think it means, Mary?
Murray Barnett:Well, I think you're absolutely right. I think everybody's gonna be looking and saying, is this something where Apple are all of a sudden in the sports business, albeit that they've done MLS and MLB and a few other things, but I think this is. Kind of unique. It, it, it's a moment in time because F1, the movie, most successful Apple film ever, uh, that involved a long two, three year engagement with Apple Senior Management in terms of building a real understanding of what F1 wanted and what Apple needed in terms of constructing the film. And I think part of that is about a culture fit. And I think that, you know, to Glen's point. They kind of felt a, a, a lot more, and I'm speculating, but they felt a lot more affinity with Apple and what Apple were trying to do and what Apple were willing to offer. And you know, it's a five year deal as well, which gives a long runway for them to be able to actually, uh, make it work. And I'm sure that during that time you'll see F1, the movie two, which will be another big way to sort of cross pollinate an audience between sort of the fiction and the, and the fact, if you like. So. It, it kind of feels like, um, that fascinating thing about, yes, it's the money, but it's also about a partner that shares the same vision that you have. Um, and like, you know, from sort of the mood music I've heard, I, I agree. I don't think it was super competitive, but at the same time, I think that Apple said all the right things and they really understood Formula One, and that's probably one of the big factors in making the deal happen. Because if you actually look at the numbers, if you, if you take the conceit that. D two C is worth 40 million. And ESPN was close to a hundred million. That's almost a like for like, so it must have been more than just the money. It must have been also a feeling that they had a shared vision for the sport.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:So I'm gonna put a couple of counters on and I'm gonna jump us from this, try and build a bridge to some other stories that we're seeing at the moment. But I think I can see echoes here. There's a question here. I guess the provocation would be, What the legacy relationship might be with ESPN, A big broadcaster we see in LIGO in France. We'll talk about that in a minute, but so there's a couple of questions in my head. One about the Apple film, whether that's real or a PR story. Because I see Netflix, people say, well, it should have been Netflix. Netflix Drive to Survive. They make that link, but Netflix have got the F1 audience. Presumably they don't need to buy the rights for F1 because they've done all the Netflix has done that job for them. Glen, what do you think about that jump and going from one to the other, they're leaving the biggest broadcaster in the world, ESPN, is there gonna be any. long memories there, do they come back cap in hand?'cause MLS is not a great case study for Apple, as I understand it.
Glen Killane:Yeah, no, I mean, I, I, I'm a look, there's, it depends on the, on the product you're talking about, but I'm a big proponent of, don't leave a, a solid partnership behind, um, you know, if you're, if you're getting some incremental gains from it. For me, the Apple piece must have been underpinned by huge commitments on, you know, kind of marketing and all of the stuff that Louisa talked about in terms of, getting them into the Apple ecosystem at every, every touch point. And the people of Formula One are very smart people. Um, and I don't believe that they would've kind of. Made that leap. Even if, you know, I don't think this is about the 140 million or whatever it happens to be. I think this is about a much bigger, longer term play. Um, I mean, I think the League one example, um, that you mentioned, Richard, is, is a classic case. And there, you know, there are many other examples, rugby on Sky and things like that in the UK that, you know, where, where, where those kind of things, you know, it's been a, a fairly solitary lesson, um, where you, you, you take the money without a kind of a. A long-term plan beyond the money. Uh, and I think that that, that, I don't think this is one of them. I think, I think Apple are in for the long haul here, and I think this is a bill, but they may have to, as Murray said, you know, grow an audience from, from virtually zero on Apple, uh, now over the next number of years. So, so they could be back to kind of square one, but there's obviously a vision there behind that. But, but it's, it's very different. League one is a very different situation. Okay.
Murray Barnett:When you, when you think about the League one thing, obviously League One is arguably the key thing in France, right? Uh, rugby, arguably third, fourth sport. So, you know, right up there in the uk and I think when you look at F1 in the US it's, it's pretty low risk for Apple, right? They're not having to write the billion dollar check to the NFL or to the NBA or others. So I think they're looking at it and saying, you know what, it's worth taking the risk. It's in the bigger scheme of things. This isn't a big a, a big financial risk for us. The, the sort of premium audience that F1 has in the states. Is small but very important. Skews heavily towards an Apple type subscriber, so there's a good cultural fit there as well. Yeah. But again, it's just not a big risk.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Pete, take I mentioned league. Is it league? League one? I like to, we're in France. I say lagoon. My French is spectacularly bad, but that's, lagoon is about as far as I'll go. So don't, don't push me any further. On the French, take us inside. What, what have we learned from this?'cause again, there are people in the room will, and listening. We'll know the history of how we got here, but where are we now and what have we learned about? Again, it comes back to, I guess the D two C question, isn't it?
Pete Bellamy:Yeah, I mean I've, um, with Leun or whatever, whichever way you wanna say it. Um, they actually, I mean, where they've, I think, have done a very good job is that it's not like they launched the service this summer. For this season. They, I actually, my previous role at Endeavor, I worked with them on the, in initial deal where, and that was three, four years ago. So they, they wanted to get ahead of it. They wanted to have a couple of seasons of understanding what the product should be. How they needed to build the kind of marketing muscle and, and all that around the service. And obviously I think probably have had to fast track a bit quicker than maybe they were thinking on domestic. But those kind of two, three seasons really gave them the, the grounding for having a a, a good launch. And look, I think from our perspective, it was about, and continuously about delivering a, you know, a, a slick but very stable experience. You know, a lot of live content, but also they've, they've been I think quite. Um, dynamic because of the situation to not just have a pure play direct consumer service with us. You know, they have distribution partnerships with, uh, with Orange, with SFR and, and various others to try and build up that overall customer base. And, and we've worked hard to try and. Authenticate to allow that, as I say, kind of platform to platform experience. So look, I think they've done a good job in in, in how they've done that. I think there's a lot more we can do with them to further enhance the experience. Because look, the biggest benefit said it, we've all said it for years. The biggest benefit for sports properties in having a direct consumer platform is really. You will deliver the best possible experience for the user because it is a genre specific experience where you can invest in the look and the feel, the content, the rewards, et cetera. And you can do that better than arguably, I think, any of the big streamers, any big broadcasters, because by the very nature, they have a much wider portfolio of content that they're trying to build into the experience. So I think they've just, we've gotta keep doubling down on that. Well, I think you could also argue
Murray Barnett:that, uh. They let Deone make the, or they learned from D Zone's mistakes, right, so, so when you look at the pricing strategy that Deone had and so on, they've come in with a very different price point, taking a much more longer term view of it. And you know, they had the benefit of the knowledge of the mistakes that Deone had made to be able to make a good first entry into it. And I think generally speaking, it's been very well received. You know, the pricing of it, the quality of it, what's on offer. And, uh, they spun it out very quickly,
Pete Bellamy:which I think was great. No, I think, I mean, I think that's spot on and actually, you know, the publicly released stats, but if you look at the, the revenue, the subscription numbers they've been putting out there, you know, a really high proportion of that, a season past subscribers as well, which I think bodes well.'cause I think, again, we all know it, but in this business, you know, that acquisition cost to get someone into a monthly subscription to then leave versus getting a full 12 months. Outta those users is absolutely crucial for the business model. So that, I think that's quite a healthy sign as well.
Louisa Clark:There's, there's also something that happens when you are a sport on a, like a broadcasters platform. When we were at, for BBC sport, if you are a sport, you are fighting for scheduling to get the upper lift off the back of another event and actually. Like Pete says it, it's hard to have quite specific engagement with your consumer. You don't really know who they are. You see a viewing figure, but you have no relationship with them because you're not in control of any pricing. You're not in control of any marketing. They might let you have one of your athletes in a campaign, but not, not maybe your top five that you would like. It's really about that relationship with the broadcaster. As to how much they will push you when you're at their behest. And the upside is that you can get a really big number of viewership, but you have a lot less exposure in a way because you're one of many, especially if you're in the mid-tier.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Can I ask a, just a question on that?'cause it's interesting, the, you quite often hear the phrase, the home of the home of boxing, the home of rugby, the home of, you know, formula One. how much of it do you need? To make that claim. Do you think, because it's quite a, it is a useful marketing
Louisa Clark:Yes.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Sort of term.
Louisa Clark:Yes. But
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:I'm you then, I mean, I'm looking at, I talked the other day about TNT and you know, trying to work out what they are the home of. Yes. Or are you a sort of compendium of stuff?
Louisa Clark:In the beginning when it was BT sport, it was important to say exclusive home of the Champions League because you are entering in. Once you're in, I think it becomes less important because what you, what you can have is a pack. If you get the right pack, if you are in Amazon and you pick the Boxing Day pack for Premier League, you can, as long as you've got enough. You don't, I, it's not my belief personally that you need to be the home of in every shape and form. You have to have enough of what you think is attractive for your base to have the claim that says it's worth. Paying us, which is what you are kind of seeing in in some of the Netflix moves in boxing. It's quite specific. Yeah.'cause you don't need to have all of boxing. You can have a little bit of it if it meets your demographic need.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:And also boxing, I always say, I think is sort of, it's been at the front of lots of media type. Trends and conversations and with the creator one at the moment. Mm-hmm. Boxing is absolutely the sharp end of it. And again, it's sort of what it says about Netflix, what Netflix wants mm-hmm. From sport. And it it, have you got a sense of what Netflix wants?
Louisa Clark:I have got a sense, I've got a sense that they, in certain markets in particular where they need more acquisition, it's doing a job for them. It's doing the job of. If you are in the States and you pay for pay-per-view, it's$80 for pay-per-view. So if it's within your Netflix subscription and you are not a Netflix subscriber, that's a nice acquisition tool for a moment in time, and they're using those kind of influencer fight YouTube fighters in the start to bridge the gap between entertainment and sports.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah.
Louisa Clark:And actually they have a lot of content on the platform that is sport documentary based, which I think is a really good thing for rights holders, that actually you don't just look at the live, you look at the shoulder content as well that can attract people into your sport and get that to as many platforms as possible.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:So they're not really in to the tonnage.
Louisa Clark:I don't think they need to be right now. It doesn't mean they won't be, but I don't think they feel the need if they use it as an acquisition driver.
Glen Killane:I think, I think what's, what's quite interesting, just to follow up on on what you're saying there, um, is this kind of hybrid model that's develop, developing. You know, I think the Brazilians have been at it for years where rights are kinda shared around different broadcasters. Ca a tv you all know that example where, where you can kind of. Cohabitate within, you know, 20 years ago it was all about absolute exclusivity. You know, everybody, you know, sky had to have, have everything. Uh, then there was some legis legislative, uh, changes that, that, you know, kind of imposed, kinda sharing things around a bit more. But I think actually there's something quite interesting happening now where. Exclusivity isn't the be all and end all that, broadcasters, streamers just need enough and that actually it's really useful to, to kind of, to pull other strings in the market to try and get profile. I wonder might that be something that, that actually the Formula One might and Apple may do in the US where they might use, uh, other, other outlets to try and get profile for this, for the sport in, in the us But I'm seeing a, an increasing trend there where. You know, my part of the forest, which is the free to air space, where we're able to kind of play a role in, in rights that we wouldn't have played a role in before. Cohabitating quite a lot with, pay operators because we can provide profile and it's not just tv, we've got a lot of strong, free to air platforms in, in, in domestic markets with domestic localized languages and all that kind of stuff. So, you know, it's the, you know, the, the, the exclusivity piece is quite, is quite interesting and I think, you know, the creators are one part of it. Um, but I think there's other, there's other angles as well, such as free to air.
Pete Bellamy:Yeah. I mean, just one point I'll add to that is I think the big question is, is how much content is, is needed for it to be compelling for a big audience. Right. And I think if you look at the US market especially, it is a bit of a nightmare as a fan of a particular sport too, if you want to consume an awful lot of one of the league sports. To be able to have all of these different touch points. I think, and you know this, in, in the, in the boxing world, the challenge that Boxing's had is that it's event by event, whereas you compare it to like UFC, they would say their biggest advantage in how they've built that property over the last kind of 15, 20 years is that they've centralized it, they have more of a repeatable schedule, which then means that you can, you can drive these monthly annualized passes, et cetera. So I, I do feel that, and the
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:danger is that we are mo that. Lots of the sports market is moving to the old boxing model, isn't it? So you have a complete sort of disparate experiences.
Pete Bellamy:Yeah, I look, I think there is a bit of a trend there, as I say, especially in the US market, but I do feel that, and I don't know the answer, but I do feel that there is gonna be a more re aggregation exercises, maybe even more from like the traditional cable TV subscription businesses to pull in. Ways of having this kind of super aggregation where you can actually see the vast majority of the NBA through a more simplified kind of authenticated model. Like I, I understand why all the leagues are doing it. They're trying to maximize their revenue, of course. But from a fan perspective, I think there needs to be a bit of a rationalization there.
Murray Barnett:I, I do think it's a bit the, uh, law of sort of unintended consequences in the sense that, you know, when you look at relevant and their packaging for the, for Champions League, it's, it's all well and good to say, look, we're gonna carve out a global streamer package, but surely that's going to devalue what the traditional pay TV operators have paid in the, in the big five markets. And so,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:yeah, it's
Murray Barnett:a pretty big bet on the fact that there's a, a global streamer out there that says. I only want one game a week, and I'm willing to pay top dollar for that. And I, and conversely, the, the value from the individual markets isn't diminished. And I mean, I think, so just clarify
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:what, what relevant are selling, what have they come to market
Murray Barnett:with? I, I think it's a first pick. Uh, each week, each match week of that is designed on to be sold on a global basis.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:So it's a sort of Netflix targeting. Package is that what?
Murray Barnett:Very much so. Or any or Amazon or any of the sort of potentially even Apple, if you know, if you believe that.
Glen Killane:I, I think what's, what's actually kind of hidden behind that is the, is is going with the big five markets at the same time as well. I think that's really, really interesting because any of the streamers I've seen coming into the u uh, the European market, they're only really interested in the Big Five. Um, they're not interested in medium sized markets, so. That could be really, really, uh, you know, the big, the big as big a game changer nearly as the, as the global package. Yeah. Because that offers an opportunity to, to shore up those big five and that, that could be big bucks. Um, um, you know, so, so I'd watch that one as well. That's, that's, uh, that's an interesting play.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:So that's just, again, just to be clear, they've got one streamer package global, and then there's another package that they're offering across the top five markets.
Glen Killane:Yes. Simultaneously launching all five large markets. So, so, you know, they could be sold individually, uh, I presume. Um, but also it offers an opportunity for a streamer type operation or a D Zone to buy all five large market or sky. I mean, sky could go out
Murray Barnett:and buy, you know, Italy, Germany, uk.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Okay. we cannot. Have a, sport panel talking about what people think about, without mentioning YouTube. We're sort of almost contractually obliged to mention YouTube at this point. Glen, what is free to air when there is YouTube on my tele, what's, that's the question. I can't quite work out.
Glen Killane:I look, I, I, think, YouTube's doing something very different to what Free Two Air is doing. Um, I think if you take any of our, our members, you take the BBC in the UK or like ITV who are members of the EBU or you take YLE in Finland, they're producing content for the local market. They're producing content that is aimed at their, the, the demographics within that market. YouTube doesn't do that. You know, YouTube doesn't provide that kind of. Focus on local athletes, local stories, following those, those, the, you know, the, the local heroes. YouTube does an, an amazing job. Um, I suppose, you know, there's a, there's an awful lot of content there though, you know, in terms of how do you, how do you get prominence for your content on YouTube, um, if you are a rights holder? Um, for me, I think, I think there's a, there's a huge role for YouTube, uh, and I think we can all work with YouTube. Um, I think the biggest problem is, um. We're paying for rights and they're not. Yeah. And, and, and our rights are showing up on YouTube. Uh, and that's not, which is a, which is a decision, isn't it? It's not. I, yeah. Um, they don't have to put them fair play to them, but do you know what? YouTube don't need our help. Um, you know, they don't need us to be giving them free content. Um, but, but, and, and I think for sure we can work with them. Um. You know, can we partner with them? I mean, that would be lovely to think that we could partner with them, where we could kind of, you know, buy rights jointly. Uh, and, and both entities get, uh, get something out of it. That's my biggest issue with it, is that they're not coming to the party in terms of putting money on the table. Uh, and that's unsustainable for us, you know, so we have to, you know, we've, we've looked at, at different solutions. We have our own streaming platform where we, we kind of utilize our own rights, Eurovision sport, um, which is, uh, which launched, uh, just over a year ago. But that, you know. They haven't shown willingness to kind of come and pay real money for you. There's lots of rev share stuff and et cetera, et cetera, but it doesn't really cut, it doesn't really cut it when it comes to, to buying rights. The, the, the hardnosed reality of it is we need to find money to buy rights. So,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:and it, it's sort of Louisa, it's a big version of your question about getting prominence within one TV channel, getting prominence on YouTube. what do you think about that question in terms of how do you play with YouTube?
Louisa Clark:So I mean, I'll hold my hand up to being the person that put Jake Paul on TV in the uk. Um, because I like when I was a, it's almost like
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:you're confessing to something, to be
Louisa Clark:honest. I got a lot of grief. Um, I don't mind though. I was right. Um, I feel like actually what sports. Do need to think about is what YouTube does for a sport as in the rights holder. So. You can get into a world where you sort of look as our demographic here tells us in sport talent and goes, that thing is over there and it's, it's sort of nothing to do with us, but actually it is because more and more we see that YouTube is not going anywhere. It only actually gets bigger and bigger every year. And I think what it does is it can unlock new fans, it can unlock new formats. It can help your support, your sport survive in a different way and help it move forward. There are audiences in one area and audiences in another, and it, and, and they can merge and they can cross. So I, I am. Maybe a little bit more'cause of my older background in broadcasting as well as the sports. I kind of feel like actually you have to embrace it because otherwise there is an issue with it. Yeah. But it doesn't mean that you shouldn't take your own brand, make sure you've got a strong YouTube presence, work with the influencers to try and bring new eyeballs to your sport. And I do agree that the trickier thing with YouTube is there's a lot on there. Um, we put the Champions League final on their free to air as part of the UA four agreement that we had via team. Yeah. That said it had to go on a, as it was called then, a user generated content platform. Mm-hmm. Um, and. And actually it proved really interesting. Well, think, I guess, I guess one of the,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:yeah, so one of the questions was is we did used to call it that, and it probably, it still is that, but we don't, we now they want us to call it television, don't they? Yes. Because, um, I think sometimes it's interesting to ask what, what does YouTube worry about? Which is a weird question, but they worry about premiumness, don't they? They're worried. They, they see sport. And they see premium sponsors and advertisers.
Louisa Clark:Yeah, I think there's option, as we said, there's
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:a lot of it. You don't want your brand associated.
Louisa Clark:Yeah. I think they started off in that user generated content, but I don't think that's where they would say that they are. They might pretend that they still are there, but no, they're, they're competing with all the other platforms in the same way. Otherwise, Netflix wouldn't be taking YouTubers and giving them shows on Netflix. There's a, they, they, everyone's recognizing the power in that.
Pete Bellamy:Yeah, I mean, I, I would add that, you know, with YouTube, I think from, um, sports Property's point of view, the usual challenges are the data insights. You know, capturing customer data performance is all very limited. Um, and also I've, I feel that for most our recommendation is, it's actually about that being complimentary as a kind of promotional channel to whatever else you're trying to do with a distributor in market or with your direct consumer service. In market, we see it very much as complimentary, uh, because look, I mean, there's obviously, there's a lot of content, as you say on there, that probably isn't particularly aligned to how a lot of these sports properties want to be positioned in the market. So I would, I would say the, the trickiest balance is where some of these sports properties have very high engagement in video content on that platform, but ultimately it's like how do you transition that journey into more of a. A tailored experience elsewhere.
Murray Barnett:Yeah, I, I think too much of the time we talk about YouTube as, as, as rights own, as you talk about it in a very binary way. Like, should I be on YouTube or should I do that? The answer is, you've got to do it all right? So it's this sort of disintermediation of, of rights where you need to be on pay TV for the money. You need to be on free TV for a bit of exposure. You need to be on, on, on social media platforms to build engagement. So it's, it's somehow trying to fit all of that ecosystem together. In the optimal way. And by the way, it'll be completely different for each individual sport because it has a different, uh, audience and a different sort of way that people consume the sport. So, you know, for example, uh, I think something like rugby, there should be a lot more rugby on YouTube because they need to build an audience for their live property. So if you look at the prem rugby in the uk. They're sitting behind a paywall. So they want, they need to have much more in front of a paywall, wherever that is, free tv, YouTube, social media platforms to build that engagement, which then drives people to watch the live product, which is where they're making the money.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:we've got about eight minutes, 20 seconds about, uh, left. So if you've got a question, please put your hand up and I will, we'll sort of put a mic in front of you. I know Carlo. You have a question? It's not even a question, but No, no, no. I need it on the mic'cause it's a podcast. We can give you a microphone. Please
Louisa Clark:say your name and your company, or at least your, as a man. He's wearing
Carlo Di Marchis:a scarf. Yeah. A man with a scarf. No, to be honest, it's not a question, but I just noticed as I was sitting down after the queue entering, sorry, from being late, the internet, most of the internet is down. Any impact on what you're saying? The internet is down. Oh yeah. Most of it. Amazon, Roblox. Substack just happened like 15 minutes, 20 minutes ago. I dunno, it's a reflection. Maybe not. That could mean something quite ominous, couldn't it?
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:I dunno the answer. No, me neither. That's an,
Glen Killane:that's an interesting, an interesting, side story to, to kind of this streamer, um, and champions league, uh, question. You know, if you go whole wholeheartedly for something like that and, and this is the space that, that Pete, you're in more than we are, but, but, uh. You know, the old reliable satellite, uh, has its advantages, you know, and, uh, and, and you get concurrent streams. You get something as big as a Champions League final or a semi-final. Are you gonna be able to stand up? Uh, are you gonna be able to keep it going? You know,
Louisa Clark:I think that was the issue when we went to put it first. Um, as part of the rain, uh, the riots, uh, obligation was. The nervousness of actually YouTube hadn't, at that point delivered volume of potentially that size coming in. So the amount of work you have to do to have all your disaster recovery in place. And, and it took us quite a bit of doing, even though they consider it'll be fine, it'll be fine. And actually the backup we had was that we were still obviously broadcasting it on a standard linear satellite platform. So you could feel that comfort. But I think you're right. Those platforms have to be able to show a couple of things. One is resilience of the platform itself, but DRM protect rights protection at a level. That will satisfy rights holders, especially the, the likes of ufa. It's not a small thing to take on If you think, oh, I'll just go for that pack and I'll have one pick a week, one pick a week globally is is a big pick.
Pete Bellamy:Yeah. Yeah. We, um, I just sat, we, we did a lot of work together at t and t used to beat me up actually a fair bit on the old. On some of the, uh, the cost negotiations
Louisa Clark:I was practicing for my new job.
Pete Bellamy:Yeah, yeah. But I think, I mean, it's, it's an important point that we would look at these pay-per-view events on t and t wouldn't, and we would have a debate on should we, should we have infrastructure to scale for 300,000 pay-per-view or 200,000 pay-per-view? Because you have to build in that resiliency ahead of time. Especially for those one-offs, you've gotta be so careful in your kind of risk profile versus investment to almost take care of the problem around scalability. So it is, it is an area that you constantly have to look at from a, from a streaming perspective. Definitely. That's what keeps you up at at night, isn't it? Yeah, that is exactly right. Yeah.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Question here.
Nitsan Peled, WSC Sports:Hi, um, Nisan from WC Sports. Um, thank you. First of all, it's been fascinating. I got five pages of notes here. Um, I wanted to ask a question, take you to the beginning of your conversation. Um, it seems to me as an, as an F1 fan that the US market has been the number one priority. I mean, 15 years ago I think there was, there was zero races in the us. Now there are three, obviously the F1, if anyone watched the movie, it is incredibly American in the, the way, you know, just the how the, the audience that is appeals to. And then, so this move. That seems to me like they, as you all touched on, um, limiting their exposure in the US struck me as weird through that angle of they've been focusing on the American audience and now they're going to what is essentially a niche player. So I wonder how, what's your reaction to this through this angle of trying to extend exposure to the American audience? And suddenly shifting to a niche player. I'll
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:let the experts, but, but one of the interesting points I think about F1 in America is that it is a niche player and it's, it is weird for our, from, you know, I'm British and in Europe you've got a different perspective on it, but it's a very exotic niche product. I think still if you, if you compare it to nascar, the numbers and Mario, but just are enormous that it is dwarfing. So there is a sort of sense of that bit. It is a, it is a marginal player. But there, there's, it's done brilliantly in terms of its American story. Anyone want to sort of
Glen Killane:jump in? Can I, I, I've a very uninformed comment on it, but I, you know, for me it's precisely that. And, and if you're gonna roll the dice, you may as well roll it with someone like Apple, you know, uh, because you know, you've got, you don't have that much to lose. Okay. There are, there is, there is a lot of, some jeopardy there. But if you're rolling the dice with a, a, as big a player as Apple, there's a lot of comfort and a lot of, uh, safe. There's a huge safety net there. Um, and, and I'm, I'm sure I don't know the details of the deal. But I'm sure there's huge commitments in terms of marketing promotion for years to years to come. So I, I would
Pete Bellamy:echo that. I think there must be a huge amount behind it from a kind of product and engagement point of view, and then all the marketing as well. Um, all I would say more from just reading it, not being informed on the ins and outs of the deal, but there's a huge link in all the articles I've read, uh, to the movie and the success of the movie. So I do wonder if there was some grander plan between them over the course of the last few years to go with a very, uh, American skewed view of F1 through a movie format to drive, you know, great engagement in the US market to where they are today. I dunno. But they seem to be putting a lot of, uh, linkage, as I say to the, to the movie itself.
Louisa Clark:But sometimes people at a very senior level fall in love. They just fall in love with a sport and, and they get a relationship and then suddenly they're sort of smitten by them and then they think that that can translate to life. And I think that's what interests me. Just because you like the glamor and the sort of the history of a sport and then you fall in love because it does very well for you in the box office. Yeah. It doesn't mean that you are. Subscribers actually want the live, and I'm, I'm interested to see what happens. I have not watched the, I think there's also a, now
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:there's a, a, a, a much more practical point about its suitability to a, streaming product because of in race advertising. I think the early experiences, and I'm nicking this from, it's a very good piece from Mike Darcy who wrote it this morning on LinkedIn, who was the guy that sort of sold Sky TV to. Bernie Leston and Bernie Olson's lens was very much tobacco advertising and public broadcasting very, you know, that's what made it successful until he saw how much sky were prepared to pay and that the experience of, of in-game, in race advertising in America was seen as really suboptimal. It's a really, you know, it's just jutting in, in all the wrong places. So making the money back from ESPN's point of view, I think, uh, you know, now is quite an interesting question. Um, I dunno, the, we've got 56 seconds to answer, which we won't be able to get to.
Louisa Clark:I would, I would say that as a rights holder, the more platforms that enter sports, even if they just Yeah, have a, is a great thing because what rights holders need in that mid tier, in that lower tier is more options, not the same options. So I hope it does well and I hope that also the relevant pack. It attracts people in at different level, so that just as a right, you have more outlets that to consider as well as D two C and as well as YouTube and social media. It's a, it's a good thing if it works.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Brilliant. Right. Okay. We are now gonna draw a draw a halt. And first of all, thanks very much. I think we started off by saying what will people be worried about when they come to sport health? The answer is plenty. So, and, and that I think that happens every year anyway, so it's not specific to this year, but I want to please thank our guests with a round of applause.'cause it sounds good on a podcast.